You may personally not be impossible to please, but there's plenty of them who are. And they're a very litigious group with lots of spare time, which makes it hell for anyone to try and do, well, pretty much anything.

First, California is no longer allowed to build cooling plants that suck in water like this because they are so destructive on the local marine ecosystem. The cooling plants are all either moving, or becoming compliant with the new laws. These desalination projects are rushing to co-locate with these old energy cooling plants so they can use this out-dated infrastructure, and have argued (successfully) they should not be subject to the same laws as the energy companies. This in and of itself is cause for concern as it means the law is now being applied unequally.

In addition, the article makes no mention of the cost of desalinated water. It might seem like it's the answer to CA water woes, but it's incredibly expensive, and ratepayers are in for a shock. Luckily the local water agencies are doing studies to see what increases will likely fly under the radar without public uproar. (Pls read that last sentence with sarcasm.)

The real solution to California's water problems is to use less as we are already doing, and turn to recycled water options that offer multi-purpose water management use - a more integrated approach if you will, and something enviros support. Additionally, recycled water it is much more cost-effective as we have already purchased it. Most agencies who understand integrated water management in CA see it this way too.

The worst part about this entire proposed project is that it's a "take and pay" contract, meaning drought or no drought, San Diegans will be forced to pay for water we may or may not need. And just ask the folks in Sydney Australia how that worked out for them. It has resulted in a huge outcry against these types of projects, and while the SD project may go through, it will be tough to keep pushing them on the rest of the state once there's a little bit of history to provide clear 20-20 vision.

:) I wouldn't say we are impossible to please. We are advocating for recycled water use. And yes, California is full of them, because literally, our lifestyle of going to the beach, hiking the cliffs, surfing, swimming, sailing, kayaking, etc. is why we choose to live here, so yes, conservation, and preservation of what makes CA worth living in is important to us, and worth standing up for.

If he didn't mean that, he chose his words strangely because NIMBYism is exactly what it sounds like to me.

Having enough water to support your population is at least as important as maintaining tourism. And it's not as though there aren't already industrial areas in southern California where these plants could be put and never noticed by most locals, never mind tourists.

Desalination should remain a water supply of last resort, but that's because of the energy requirements, not because the plants would be an eyesore.

That said, in CA most of the coast is park-like, and most of our beaches are part of a state or county park system, so industrializing our coast is not what we want, nor is it a good policy to put factories in parks.

Coastal tourism generates $46 billion in revenues for our state, and it is imperative we don't put these desalination factories up and down it.

Belinda doesn't mention fact the price San Diego pays for water is also "incredibly expensive" and going up at a steep rate. San Diego's water comes from long distances (Northern Calif or the Colorado River). These sources also use energy but this fact is always ignored. San Diego and the other cities are practicing conservation as noted in the article. Calif water supplies are very unreliable so how do you conserve when there is no water? Yes, the Belinda can hike, surf, and continue to play while others must plan for reliable future water supplies.

Not sure I see the environmentalist's case from the article. If the process is only to take 50m gallons out of the 304m gallons of daily sea water intake and discharge, the brine produced by the process will be very diluted. 50m gallons to the Pacific Ocean is, as a figure of speech, a mere drop in the ocean.

Fair enough, but with 20 desalination factories planned for our coast, every community will end up with one. So at some point NIMBY is inevitable. And it's certainly a fair response if we aren't prioritizing other cheaper, more environmentally friendly options that already exist over desal.

Surfrider, like many other groups is saying we don't have a water problem, we have a water management problem. We could rely more on stormwater capture, more on recycled water, and more on conservation before turning to desal. Desal, for many, many reasons should be the last resort.

Regarding energy use: yes, even in Saudi Arabia where there's not a drop of water to drink, the newest desal plants use solar energy, and this is in a country that has virtually unlimited oil for energy use.

The power plant is shutting down, so there's no more "piggy-back" argument for the intake. It's also not "a few" people who are opposed to the project. Since this story was written in the Economist, I am surprised there's no mention of the high cost of this project -- more expensive than any other water supply option. Nor is there any reference to the economic viability of this plant: it requires almost $800 million dollars in tax exempt bonds to even get off the ground. Certainly there's a bias here, but that shouldn't get in the way of the facts too.